From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: For review: documentation of clone3() system call Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:36:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87wocn39fu.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> References: <20191028172143.4vnnjpdljfnexaq5@wittgenstein> <20191029112706.p5dd5yzpcgouo6n5@wittgenstein> <20191029142622.jxmssu4s4ndui7bw@wittgenstein> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20191029142622.jxmssu4s4ndui7bw@wittgenstein> (Christian Brauner's message of "Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:26:23 +0100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Brauner Cc: Jann Horn , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , lkml , linux-man , Kees Cook , Oleg Nesterov , Arnd Bergmann , David Howells , Pavel Emelyanov , Andrew Morton , Adrian Reber , Andrei Vagin , Linux API List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org * Christian Brauner: > @Florian, do you have an opinion about always passing the stack from the > lowest address with clone3()? Do you mean that the stack extends from stack to stack_size? I guess that makes sense. What about architectures which need two stacks (I think ia64 is one)? There is also the matter whose responsibility is the alignment of the initial stack pointer. Thanks, Florian